Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2671 2012 SLD 2671 2012 YLR 2777
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11194-B of 2012, decided on 23rd August, 2012
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J
Muhammad Inayat Ullah Cheema for Petitioner. Muhammad Naeem Sheikh, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Zulfiqar Butt, A.S.-I. with record

SAGHEER AHMAD

VS

THE STATE and others

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381/411---Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused, who worked as an Assistant Manager at a shop was alleged to have stolen cloth from the shop and sold the same in the market--Father of the accused had allegedly produced Rs.25000 before the Investigating Officer as recovery of case property---Unexplained delay of 3/4 months in lodging of F.I.R. without date, time and place of occurrence---Offences alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---No recovery was carried out at the instance of accused---Amount produced by accused's father before Investigating Officer, could not be said to be recovery of case property at the instance of accused---Accused was no more required for further investigation---Case was one of further inquiry and accused was admitted to bail accordingly. National Judicial Policy, 2009 ref. ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---The complainant was served but he is not in attendance. 2. The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.93 dated 6-6-2012, under sections 381/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt., Kharian District Gujrat. 3. Allegation levelled by the complainant, the manager of shop, against the petitioner is that he being Assistant Manager in the shop, with the help of his co-accused had stolen away 2613 meters cloth valuing Rs.19,22,880 from the shop and sold the same in the market. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is an unexplained delay of 3/4 months in lodging the F.I.R. without any date and time of occurrence; that no witness was mentioned who saw the occurrence; that a recovery of Rs.25,000 is no recovery in the eyes of law; that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime; that offences do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that under the National Judicial Policy it has been laid down…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492